Why not? And wouldn’t embarrassment over the failure to act in other places be enough reason to motivate action where it was more feasible?
White people do not help black people unless there is political or economic gain to be had. It’s truly that simple and there’s centuries of U.S policy to back this up. You also have to ask yourself why would America want to help Africans? They already have millions of African-American “refugees” who, by their own admission, have labeled a group of people as the “Negro Problem”. Why would the U.S ever go back to Africa to help any country there? Who labels living, breathing human beings as a “Problem” (with a capital P) unless you look at them as subhuman (which the U.S implicitly does).
I don’t know much about Operation Restore Hope but I suspect it wasn’t all about helping the poor downtrodden blacks. It has never (and will never) be about that. If that was the case, why not launch Operation Restore Hope in Detroit, Atlanta, Cleveland, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia? Don’t worry, that was a rhetorical question :). Operation Restore Hope was likely political, done magnanimously, or a combination of both.
Harsh condemnation? It’s the truth. The U.S foreign policy matches U.S domestic policy in that neither gives a shit about non-whites. The reason U.S intervened in Kosovo (which,by the way, I am glad we did) because the people of Kosovo are white. If the people of Kosovo looked like the Aborigines they would’ve been left to slaughter.
- Honesty
The Serbs of Kosovo are white, and the KLA brutally cleansed them out, with help from NATO. Let’s not forget the Serbs of Serbia, bombed for months. Earlier, the pattern of cleansing was similar for the Serbs of Krajina. There was indeed something of a crude propaganda campaign to render the Serbs as the “other,” but that doesn’t fit with the white supremacist model mentioned above.
What both cases involved that was to the US’ advantage was time. The US doesn’t go to war quickly unless responding to a direct attack. Remember that Bush’s war in Iraq was “rushed” into but took months to get started. What happened in Rwanda didn’t take months. The wheels of intervention move VERY slowly in humanitarian missions. The longer the humanitarian crisis goes on, the more likely Western intervention is. If you just kill everyone fast, there are no consequences.
The reference is to the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Another description of No True Scotsman.
Do not insult other posters outside The BBQ Pit.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
Simply unacceptable to have large scale instability so close to central Europe, whether human, economic or political. Can’t quantify the variables or game the complexity so you have to end it.
This is like a few hundred miles from the border of the largest manufacturing exporter in the world at the time - you really do have to end it. The markets insist, everyone understands it can’t be allowed. Syria it ain’t.
Well, I appreciate the cite but I take from it a VERY different message than the one you are imputing. The cited page can’t be copied and pasted and I am too lazy to type it all out myself. Suffice it, then, for me to quote two sentences from your link:
This hardly seems the stuff of hegemonic intent.
Then you declare:
Imagine that! The nerve! How dare those Yankee imperialists insist on fair elections and respect of human rights.
Listen, I respect and appreciate your efforts to provide cites for your opinions. But what you’ve provided does not in any way support your accusations (i.e. your assertion above that “. . . Washington (and London, Bonn/Berlin, Paris, etc.) did not look kindly on a state developing outside (and against!) the neoliberal capitalist model . . .”
The United States presented itself as the world leader after 1991. If we wanted the benefits we had to accept the responsibilities. When the killings in Yugoslavia became too big for the world to ignore, we were expected to intervene.
I’ve seen enough of this stuff that I recognize the code, or to put it another way, I like to think I understand what the vague, bureaucratic language means. In the midst of all the boilerplate, there’s the very revealing “market-based” language. When governments (not just that of the US) say that sort of thing, it sure doesn’t mean that they are OK with Titoist “market socialism,” or anybody else’s. It also fits the pattern of NATO’s actions towards Yugoslavia, which ramped up immediately after Yugoslavia’s use as a buffer was over.
I italicized the bit about the six separate republics not only because it is suspicious in its hypocrisy (the Kuwaiti dictatorship was violently restored and the Saudi dictatorship was protected, both very publicly, soon after), but because it doesn’t look like that specific stipulation was included in the legislation to encourage federalism and local elections. In concert with the aforementioned actions of the NED, the German government, and other actors, the US government was encouraging secessionist/separatist movements in Yugoslavia, and would continue to do so.
Point taken, but isn’t stating that reference itself a kind of fallacy? (“Appeal to Authority/Antiquity”, for instance.)